Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The social physics of conversation: Communication patterns matter

andiroberts.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 41 posts

Re: The social physics of conversation: Communication patterns matter

#11

Post by ricardobeat »

bmacho wrote: post #6

So bad article. It is waay too long and it is just repeating ~3 claims without even looking like the author is interested in their truthness. Here's a nice pdf version of the sourced article 'Pentland, A. (2012) The new science of building great teams' : https://globalioc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/The-New-Sci... > That one at least tries to look valuable, e.g. they mention someone implemented their ideas and the…

This is a confusing comment. There is no repetition in the article, and it goes over examples of workplaces that implemented these ideas. It’s basically a shorter version of the paper.

Re: The social physics of conversation: Communication patterns matter

#12

Post by jdw64 »

stuxnet79 wrote: post #9
jdw64 wrote: post #7

What I find most difficult about Western concepts is 'productivity.' They attach so many things to this fictional concept. It's about designing things to produce a large volume of output. That's why so many posts on HN always include the same pattern, 'productivity.' I clicked thinking it would be about the social physics of conversation, like how to engage people socially or avoid hurting them, but instead it drifts…

> But no matter how much I think about it, I don't believe productivity is a solid, tangible thing, the way people talk about it as if it were It's rooted in Taylorism / Management Science which is good at attaching metrics to the "factors of production" and correlating those to outputs. But it doesn't have any easy numbers to attach to morale, motivation, loyalty or conscientiousness. These are all human factors tha…

Thanks for the good keyword. I'd never heard of Taylorism before. I looked it up and it seems to be an approach that breaks everything down into measurable metrics. I didn't know the term, but I think I was somewhat familiar with the concept. Thanks for teaching me something I didn't know.

I think we've all had a lot of experiences like this. When people try to explain that 'good atmosphere' and 'friendly communities' lead to better output, and then try to force that into their own metrics, that's when all the problems start. That's what you mentioned and what I often call Goodhart's law.

And on top of that, there seems to be a desire for recognition and prestige. People want to be seen as the one who explained this concept.

Thanks for sharing

Re: The social physics of conversation: Communication patterns matter

#13

Post by Anon84 »

guenthert wrote: post #8

'social physics of conversation'? Were social dynamics of conversations meant?

“Social Physics” is Alex Pentland’s term for this kind of analysis. He’s been using it for a decade or two https://a.co/d/0jcnmbap it’s almost a trademark at this point. Most people (including me when I was working on this stuff) refer to it as human dynamics

That being said, August Comte came up with the name back in the 19th century before settling on “Sociology”

Re: The social physics of conversation: Communication patterns matter

#14

Post by m0llusk »

steve1977 wrote: post #10
guenthert wrote: post #8

'social physics of conversation'? Were social dynamics of conversations meant?

No physics werw involved in this article. But I guess it makes it appear more "sciency"

Wrong. Energy, velocity, and flow characteristics are central to this analysis. The term Social Physics differentiates this context from Physics.

Re: The social physics of conversation: Communication patterns matter

#15

Post by m0llusk »

jdw64 wrote: post #7

What I find most difficult about Western concepts is 'productivity.' They attach so many things to this fictional concept. It's about designing things to produce a large volume of output. That's why so many posts on HN always include the same pattern, 'productivity.' I clicked thinking it would be about the social physics of conversation, like how to engage people socially or avoid hurting them, but instead it drifts…

Products exist and can be measured and counted.

Re: The social physics of conversation: Communication patterns matter

#16

Post by jdw64 »

m0llusk wrote: post #15
jdw64 wrote: post #7

What I find most difficult about Western concepts is 'productivity.' They attach so many things to this fictional concept. It's about designing things to produce a large volume of output. That's why so many posts on HN always include the same pattern, 'productivity.' I clicked thinking it would be about the social physics of conversation, like how to engage people socially or avoid hurting them, but instead it drifts…

Products exist and can be measured and counted.

Everyone knows this to some extent. 'Good atmosphere' and 'good community'. it's true that these things are great for productivity. But the question is, once you try to measure them, do they actually get better?

People aren't stupid. They can tell the difference between genuine communication and small talk, and there's a gap between field work and theory.

In practice, people usually trust someone who's 'reliable,' but management discourse believes that these things can be quantified, modeled, reported, and managed. Honestly, I see that as a religion.

What exactly is a 'good atmosphere'? Survey scores? Team comparisons? Manager evaluations? This is exactly Goodhart's law. The moment a measurement becomes a target, the thing you originally wanted to measure becomes distorted.

That's why I think the idea that productivity can be measured and exists in human relationships is an illusion.

And honestly, I think pushing everything toward productivity actually makes things worse.

Of course, you might think differently. Maybe discovering better metrics, better values, and better modeling could change things. I think that's possible. But I'm not sure if it's actually achievable.

Re: The social physics of conversation: Communication patterns matter

#17

Post by bmacho »

ricardobeat wrote: post #11
bmacho wrote: post #6

So bad article. It is waay too long and it is just repeating ~3 claims without even looking like the author is interested in their truthness. Here's a nice pdf version of the sourced article 'Pentland, A. (2012) The new science of building great teams' : https://globalioc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/The-New-Sci... > That one at least tries to look valuable, e.g. they mention someone implemented their ideas and the…

This is a confusing comment. There is no repetition in the article, and it goes over examples of workplaces that implemented these ideas. It’s basically a shorter version of the paper.

I see now, it gives the same example as the article I linked, even worded a bit shorter. I missed that.

TFA certainly doesn't have the tone what I want from an article that talks about facts, compared to the linked/source article that talks about their own experiments, research and results, in plural first-person.

Re: The social physics of conversation: Communication patterns matter

#18

Post by appreciatorBus »

jdw64 wrote: post #16
m0llusk wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Products exist and can be measured and counted.

Everyone knows this to some extent. 'Good atmosphere' and 'good community'. it's true that these things are great for productivity. But the question is, once you try to measure them, do they actually get better? People aren't stupid. They can tell the difference between genuine communication and small talk, and there's a gap between field work and theory. In practice, people usually trust someone who's 'reliable,' bu…

Productivity is important, even if the immaterial aspects that contribute to it can’t be precisely measured.

Productivity is the reason that only 2% the population works in agriculture and the only way we can afford to maintain a space station.

Of course there are MBA grifters who are pumping out articles about how you can measure and optimize human relationships and of course, most of these are bunk. But that doesn’t mean that productivity doesn’t exist or isn’t useful or isn’t worth thinking about how to optimize.

Re: The social physics of conversation: Communication patterns matter

#20

Post by wincy »

vjulian wrote: post #19

What are the implications or recommendations for WFH environments, I wonder?

Personally I try to chat before meetings. Say hi to people I know or have worked with in the past. Recent management told us to not do this during our standup and I expressed that was a bad idea. Got shot down though, so I make sure to go to the office despite it being three hours away at least once a quarter so people recognize my face, like the captain of some far off lord that has sworn fealty to the King making sure to show up and pay tribute every once in awhile.

One thing I’ve noticed is some people are very chatty over text and some people really aren’t. So I make good friends with people who like to make a little small talk on text, tell me about their weekend.

Post reply on HN